Transit Reviews

Frequency (2000)

Unusually well put together time travel yarn

[9/10 · 15 May 2000]

I should begin by saying that I am prejudiced in favor of time travel stories, even if, as in the case of Frequency, it is only radio waves doing the time traveling. However, I was more than usually pleased with the way Frequency came together overall.

When I first saw the previews, I was intrigued, but at the same time, I was skeptical that the premise being presented would make a good full length movie. It would have been a nice half hour Twilight Zone episode, but I would initially have thought that it would drag if it were even made into a one hour TV special. Yet I was pleasantly surprised to find unusual depth and reflection. Father and son Frank and John Sullivan gain the unexpected boon of being able to twist the flow of history to their mutual favor, but in doing so learn that it isn't as simple as it at first appeared and the consequences are suitably more involved that either could have foreseen. The complications that arise are well quite well put together, and the ending, I felt, came together in a satisfyingly neat climax.

Frequency manages to have enough depth to make it worth sitting through a feature length film without becoming so absurdly convoluted that you need a PhD to understand the plot; that is a rare combination that makes it a winner well worth seeing.

The Skulls (2000)

Sloppy beginning and ending. Average Otherwise.

[6/10 · 3 May 2000]

The Skulls is a mostly average piece of suspense fiction which mostly suffers from a rushed beginning and a not fully logical conclusion. In between, with a bit of indulgence you might find yourself enjoying the plot if you are a die hard conspiracy story fan.

It's principal weakness lies in the unquestioned acceptance of the existence of conspiritorial secret societies and mostly skips over the whole introduction and gradual seduction of the protagonist with a brief paragraph or two of text intro inserted before the opening scene and jumps right into the rest of the story as if a secret society were in fact nothing more extraordinary or unexpected than just another fraternity on campus in spite of the protestations to the contrary in the dialog. Perhaps its writers can be forgiven for this in light of today's overabundance of such fiction to the point that it's practically a genre unto itself.

Warning: minor spoiler follows...

The other problem I had was with the conclusion which, while it follows a suspenseful climax, ends illogically with the protagonist walking away minus the critical piece of evidence he had just a short time ago so desperately needed to find... with no apparent consequences. I suppose the suspenseful climax itself was supposed to resolve the matter but the fact that the protagonist is simply allowed to walk away while the society as a whole stands largely unaffected by his actions makes them seem pretty ineffectual at being sinister and dangerous afterall.

A loose end, or are we supposed to expect a sequel? The suspense is killing me.

Final Destination (2000)

Looking forward to the remake, anyway...

[6/10 · 16 April 2000]

Horror? Well, no. Not really. Final Destination manages to be horrifying only in a scene or two throughout its plot, though it is scary in its own way. The obsessive use of symbols and references to death would actually have been clever if it wasn't used somewhat heavy handedly at points. Some of the character relationships just don't make sense, and could have used more background to develop them. And the whole deal about the FBI trying to pin the death of his friends on the protagonist, who is convinced he's found "death's pattern" and is working to beat it just never quite worked for me, which is just as well, since it would have been too predictable anyway.

I did like the overall concept, though. Don't get me wrong on that. So often to we hear and use the term "cheating death" that it is refreshing to see death doesn't always take it lying down. <g> And by eschewing the temptation to make death a personified figure and instead using wild, chaotic forces in the world around us as the agents of death's plan, Final Destination managed to be scarier than a typical slasher style movie would have ever managed. In fact, if only I had felt more for the characters, and understood better their relationships, I might actually have loved this movie.

As it is, I am eagerly looking forward to some future film making genius remaking it someday.

Mission to Mars (2000)

Reinvention of the B movie?

[4/10 · 5 April 2000]

On the way in to see this movie, I chanced to notice the

digital signs indicating the current features in three

successive theaters at the multiplex I attended. They read: >Mission to Mars >Final Destination >Here on Earth I begin by pointing out this accidental alignment of titles

because the amusing irony of it was about the most entertaining part of this movie going experience.

Mission to Mars main weakness is that it tries to seem more emotionally compelling than it is. The empty characterizations, the poorly acted melodrama, the forced dialog and the stilted

dramatic situations made this abundantly clear by... oh, how long into the film? ... oh yes, they were still showing opening credits by the time I made this realization. Not an auspicious beginning.

The painful part is, some aspects of this film were actually rather intriguing. The discoveries the initial team to Mars and their subsequent rescuers make had such potential. For example, the elaborate high-tech IQ test the teams must pass to gain access to their discovery. In the end, though, it

tries to turn into a plot twist that seems vaguely reminiscent of 2001, but only vaguely.

The musical score was sappy, no doubt attempting to underscore the emotional heart tugging that wasn't happening. The special effects were average at best, with the latter sections of

computer graphic art being entirely too surreal to fit a live action movie. Some examples to watch for if you don't believe me: the alien being in the hologram, and the tacky looking

super gigantic over scaled solar system that seemed set up

to teach astronomy to grade schoolers. The movie has tiny

puns like when lone survivor Luke keeps repeatedly describing what killed his crew as a "force" (use the force, Luke - have it get you a better agent), but I can't believe they were intentional. And Jerry O'Connell just can't stop

looking like Quinn Mallory long enough to make us believe his role as anyone else. Sorry, son, you've been typecast.

But the best symbol in the movie was the Flash Gordon style rocket pendant typically worn by Woody Blake who for reasons

not adequately explored takes it off and hands it to Terri so that she will conveniently have it to give to Jim at an appropriately dramatic moment. I'm sure it was meant to be a symbol of space exploration, but it just made me think of grade B sci-fi movies from the golden years. In the end, that is the best description for Mission to Mars -- a modern day grade B sci-fi film.

The Green Mile (1999)

One miracle short...

[10/10 · 7 January 2000]

The Green Mile is a picture about miracles which comes up one miracle short. John Coffey, a simple man with supernatural talents comes up with miracles for all whom he is called upon to help... except himself. Wrongfully convicted of an unspeakable murder, one keeps hoping for a better ending,

though perhaps, as we get to know him, we come to agree with his own assessment that this end is only merciful. His obvious talent for healing is mixed with the subtler, and ultimately more torturous ability to see into the souls of others, no matter how dark the vision may be.

Yet, if that were all there was to this picture, it would be a simplistic story, more worthy of a half hour run on the Twilight Zone than a 3 hour movie. The development and interplay of characters is what cunningly blinds you to the passing of time as you watch it. There is a tinge of mystery in the beginning, an unexpectedly emotional reaction to an old film which waits until nearly the end for its explanation. While you seek it, you meet characters who evoke a range of emotions from respect to sympathy, and in a couple cases disgust. You cannot quite say that each of these receives precisely as he deserves, for this would not be so, but then, it is not so in life too many times either. There are a few surprise twists, and even once the

initial mystery from the beginning is solved, there is still a slight twist at the end, as if to remind you who wrote this tale.

There are tiny elements from time to time that seem incongruous to the time frame of the plot, but on the whole, so minor that unless you go through it looking for them, you'll likely never notice. On the whole, The Green Mile is by and large the best picture this year. If this one doesn't take awards, the awards are an empty exercise.

Bringing Out the Dead (1999)

Intensity, and a bit rule breaking.

[9/10 · 31 October 1999]

"Sometimes you have to keep the body going until the mind and heart catch up." In modern writing technique, it is generally considered heavy handed and gauche to actually state the point of your story in the actual story. Better to illustrated it, than to tell the story and then tell people what to think of it. Bringing Out the Dead is an example that sometimes --- and only sometimes --- you can get away with it and still have a good story.

In this case, it works, because it is not a moral or a singular point, but a statement of life, expressed on more than one level, and we can see as the film unfolds how the statement transforms from one sense to the next. The statement which first comes out of Frank's mouth about something seemingly unrelated, ultimately resolves itself into the key to his own dilemma. Not actually a solution to the horror of his day to day existence, but an answer at least.

But most of all, if I had to sum this film up with one word it would be: "intensity". If you like intense storylines, Bringing Out the Dead will certainly not disappoint. I dislike using a cliche like "roller coaster ride", yet it really is appropriate. You laugh one minute, then you're angry, laugh again, then get depressed; you're brought up and down so much that when the ride is over, you're exhausted and it takes you two days to figure out what you thought of it all.

Jakob the Liar (1999)

Dark comedy, with an appropriately surreal ending

[7/10 · 14 October 1999]

What I like about Jakob's tale is that Jakob is no natural hero who sets out to keep hope alive. Far from it. He is an ordinary man, and as terrified of the Nazis as any of his neighbors in the ghetto. He blunders his way into his unlikely role as a keeper of hope, and once there, cannot see from moment to moment how he can maintain it, wishes at times he could be rid of the burden, and yet somehow, manages to continue to inspire others who are so desperate for hope, they don't even try to disbelieve. In short, don't be fooled by the title: Jakob is just this guy; plotwise, he is only a hub around which a large wheel turns.

There were parts that didn't work for me, especially pieces where narration would have worked better than a character monologue (Jakob is a narrator as well as a character, so why does he talk to himself instead of us so much?) But on the whole, it was a good story, well performed by those involved.

The ending, which I shall refrain from describing for the benefit of any who have not seen it, is absolutely fitting. It is surreal, which may bother some, but leaves the door open to so many interpretations that you will wonder whether to take it as the true end, or whether it was Jakob's final lie. And fittingly, the decision is left in the mind of the viewer.

The Blair Witch Project (1999)

Innovative technique. Not quite as good as it could be done.

[7/10 · 26 September 1999]

I spent a surprising amount of time trying to decide how I felt about this movie. It was not the scariest film of the year, nor even the scariest film of the month in which it was released, If you're looking for pure chills or something that will make you scream along with the protagonists, you won't find it here. It is, however, quite entertaining, and disturbing in a fashion that falls in the general realm of terror.

The choice of storytelling medium is the instrumental deciding factor in making this film worth the price of admission (or of rental). It is such a total departure from typical Hollywood glamour and high tech fests that it imparts a deep sense of realism that could never be achieved by any other means, no matter how sophisticated the industry becomes. But the decision to use "amateur footage" as the sole medium for the storyline is paradoxically both the strong point and the greatest weakness of this film. First, the story couldn't work any other way without a serious rewrite. It would be too hokey any way but the way in which it's presented. But in the form of "real life" footage, it works. At times, the effort to make the footage look sufficiently amateurish to seem real is strained and in some cases overdone. At others, the very unprofessionalism is what makes it so moving. For instance, Heather's taped apology to their parents. Bad camera angle, no obvious makeup, bloodshot eyes, and a shot so unglamourous that even when you've read the disclaimer of fictionality, you still think for a moment... "are you sure this isn't real?"

But the most critical decision point is whether we believe that all of this would make it onto film. There is a pivotal scene in which Josh condemns Heather for "still making movies" when they are lost in the woods. She replies, tearfully, "It's all I have, okay?" Miss that scene, and you'll never stand any chance of believing that so much of this story "realisticly" made it onto film. Simply put, these are aspiring film makers whose life training has made it a deeply engrained habit to film everything. That's as close as you'll get to an explanation for the completeness of the film records here. Still, it's a tough sell. There are things you still can't believe got on film, yet without these scenes, the story would lose a lot in the

translation. That's the double edged sword: show too much, you lose that natural realism, show too little, you lose the story itself. Clearly the film's producers were treading a thin line here.

It worked. Just about. But there was still room for improvement.

The Haunting (1999)

Unrealized potential

[4/10 · 5 August 1999]

It is surprising how many of the characters in the film come across as superfluous. I mean, really, the whole tale seems like it could be carried by Eleanor Vance vs. the spirit world, if only they could come up with a more convincing way of getting her into the house.

The character of Theo is a prime example. Catherine Zeta-Jones is gorgeous and provocative, but one can't help feeling that her sole function for being in the film is to look pretty and say outrageous things in a desperate attempt to shoehorn sex appeal into a plot that has no real room for it. In fact, the only part of her that is not shown off to good advantage is her acting skill, making it painfully obvious that her role is primarily decorative. But the sad part is... that alone makes her far more useful than most of the rest of the cast.

Her scene, for example, with Liam Neeson, as Theo chastises the good Dr Marrow for his tarnished ethics and poor judgement in having put them all in this situation in the first place lacks the passion one would expect from someone who's got so much right to be angry at being made a lab rat, yet, it's just as well, as Neeson himself seems half asleep while she rants, and strikes me throughout the film as never really understanding his role.

And as for Luke (Owen Wilson) --- oh, my. Has there ever been a character so utterly pointless for anything but getting himself killed by angry spirits? And the way the whole thing is put together and acted out leaves us unable to believe the whole death scene ever happened in the first place. I mean, what was that emotion supposed to be, anyway? Panic? Or just utter stupidity? If possible, this character and his portrayal are even more disfunctional than any of the others.

I agree with other comments I've read, that Lili Taylor manages to pull off her role [Eleanor] with some degree of dignity, but even she has a hard time portraying the sense of encroaching madness one would expect under such stresses, though her role was the best one the film had to offer, and she does manage it with some degree of grace and skill.

The technical effects in the film were very nice. I'm a fan of such things in general, although I was disappointed that easily four fifths of the best fx were already seen in the local TV ads, they were, in general, nicely supplemental to the incredible atmosphere created simply by the sets themselves. A house so elaborately designed as Hillhouse is portrayed would, in and of itself be an awesome effect, even without the techno trickery brought on by the plot. Regrettably, between the house and the special effects, I found myself leaving the theater wondering why the humans in this film got so much screen time.

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

Good set up for II & III, leaves plenty of mysteries.

[10/10 · 5 June 1999]

What both bothered and fascinated me is the number of mysteries this movie set up, however. I say "bothered", but I mean it in a good way. The kind of way that makes you say, "How fast can they come out with II & III?"

All in all, the story is a good beginning that quite appropriately leaves gaps into which many additional pieces must fall for the tale to be complete, and yet, it is a story which can stand alone in and of itself --- for now. In the image of Episode IV (the original Star Wars), it contains a complete-in-itself story which is nonetheless part of a larger epic. An excellent first chapter for a classic saga.

There is only one reason I can think of for the critics to pan this movie: pre-release hyper-hype. It is clear that if you build a movie up as greatly as this one was built up, it's sure to stir the cynical juices in people who were just hoping to find something wrong with it.

Now, as to the movie: beautiful work. Absolutely beautiful.

Well worth the money to see it, even if you're just a casual fan (are there any?) There were awesome special effects, yes, but there were also astonishingly subtle touches, like the "crackling" in the film, and the ocassional bit of "lint in the camera lens" effect, that I've actually heard people complaining about as if it were a flaw. I can't say I've checked it out on every screen in every theatre, but I'm 90% sure those "flaws" would be in every copy, since they appear to be deliberate finishing touches introduced by post processors to give the story more of a "long ago in a galaxy far far away" feel. I smiled when I heard people complaining, as I remember seeing similar effects in the original Star Wars, and I could hardly believe they did it, myself.

As for my part, I loved the characters (even Jar Jar, whom so many seem to despise --- every action movie needs a comic relief to keep the audience sane in the midst of so much tension). I was kind of shocked by critics who implied Jar Jar's people were promoting racial stereotypes. I mean, DUH! Part of the movie implied they were typically treated as inferiors, and in turn bore no love for the Naboo. By the end of the film, this situation turns around in a very positive manner. That is, if you haven't already tuned it out because you've made up your mind to hate it before you walked in the theatre.

The same can be said for most of the critical comments I've heard. If you even just LIKE Star Wars, see this film. It will astound you.

The Matrix (1999)

A worthwhile piece of science fiction entertainment.

[9 May 1999]

The non-spoiler part of the comments...

Matrix manages to effectively combine two or three rudimentary sci-fi concepts with some (not too scary) existential philosophy to produce a movie whose first twenty to thirty minutes (unless you've heard the plot) will have you wondering just what exactly is happening, and surprise you when you finally find out. It's strengths are a plot which requires the viewer to think a bit to work out what's happening (but not so much you walk away shaking your head in puzzlement), blending into a more straight Authority vs. Rebels action film in the latter parts, and some extremely impressive special effects which make the whole thing work well. It's only real weakness is a few cliches that might make the more picky viewers roll their eyes, but hey, like they say, there is nothing wholly new under the sun. Matrix manages to make those cliches its own, and cross them in new ways that the less than totally cynical will find well worth the price of admission.

SPOILER HATERS STOP HERE.

* * * * *

I liked the deliberate plays on our sense of reality. For example (paraphrasing, maybe badly) "deja-vu is a glitch in

the matrix. It happens when They change something", and "you're here because you sense there's something wrong. You can't define it but there it is like a splinter in your mind's eye." How many of us haven't felt deja-vu, or felt that alienated sense of being strangers in a world that's not really our own? Matrix seizes this peculiar paranoid angst that has become so prevalent in our 20th century lives and provides us with an (albeit fantastical) explanation that forms the essence of the plot. It gives a new spin to the increasingly ubiquitous "Men in Black" and the new tendency to mistrust Authority, rather than simply questioning it. It also hits you with the biggies of philosophy: What is Reality? If you couldn't tell the dream from waking, is it still a dream? And most potentially devastatingly of all WOULD it really matter? If you want to see some very clever special fx, and you're not afraid to think just a little, see The Matrix.

The Gods Must Be Crazy (1980)

Surprisingly classic.

[9/10 · 14 February 1999]

Definitive proof that high end cinematography and special effects do NOT make a movie good. So completely overlooked by the mainstream movie industry in our area that only one theatre played it, and they only held it for a week. But I seized it eagerly when it became available on video, and it remains one of my all time favorites to date.

There has already been a good deal of commentary on the philosophy of culture clash, or the "evils of civilization" angle, but the one thing I could add is that this movie, in its off-beat, thoroughly endearing way, shows the evolution of mythology from reality. After having already laughed our way through the entire hysterical plot, the one final reward for our patient viewing is the finally seeing the disposition of "The Evil Thing" and the bushman-hero's triumphant return home, having achieved success in his curious quest. Okay, so it's too bizarre to have happened for real (or is it? Hmm... we do live in a fairly strange world...) but it shows how mythology might get started, and why it might live on.

All done with minimal budget and no special effects worth speaking of. Bravo. Ingenious!